Oct. 31, 2022
October 31, 2022 All I hear in terms of opposition or complaints towards this rule is that it'll be \"too much work\" or \"too expensive\" to report this information. The rules apply to everyone, so everyone is in the same boat. If it's too hard, then tell these institutions \"Don't take these types of positions then, no one has a gun to your head. That's not our problem.\" If it's too expensive, then tell these institutions \"We recommend shifting funding from your corporate and governmental lobbying funds so that you are better able to afford the reporting of your short positions. Alternatively, don't take so many short positions. Again, no one has a gun to your head making you take on this unreported risk. This isn't the SEC's problem, it's your problem that you now are required to report.\" I am still amazed that we ask for Wall Street's opinion on matters like this. The SEC is supposed to be cops on the beat, but you're asking the criminals what their opinion is on the new laws. Would you ask a guy who robbed your grandmother what their opinion is on whether they should disclose how much they stole from your grandmother? Of course not, yet here we are. I think the SEC needs to define who their primary goal of protecting is. Right now you claim that you protect \"investors.\" Well, which ones? Be very specific in your definition because retail market participants are, by and large, the classic definition of an investor. They buy, and they wait. Hedge Funds and Institutional investment banks are traders - they trade stocks all day every day. Retail participants are investors. You need to protect retail from Wall Street. Wall Street needs no protection - they lobby for their power and control, and have effectively unlimited funding to do so through lobbyists and lawyers. Does that sound like a level playing field when comparing to Mr. and Mrs. Mom Pop retail investor?